In re Adrian P. CA1/3

Filed 3/8/13 In re Adrian P. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re ADRIAN P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SONOMA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, A136159 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. 3770) MARIO M., Defendant and Appellant.

Mario M. appeals from an order terminating his parental rights to his now 17- month-old daughter. He contends the court violated his right to due process by setting the permanency planning hearing without first providing him a reasonable chance to establish his paternity and fitness as a parent and that the violation of his constitutional rights was compounded by the failure of the Sonoma County Human Services Agency (the agency) to exercise due diligence in providing timely notice of the proceedings. We conclude that any potential violation of Mario‟s rights was harmless and shall affirm the judgment. Factual and Procedural History Daughter was detained immediately upon her birth in October 2011. A petition filed two days later alleged that she came within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions

1

Code1 section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g), in that mother was currently hospitalized in the psychiatric ward of Marin General Hospital, had ongoing mental health issues that rendered her unable to safely parent and protect the child, and had failed to seek any prenatal care for her due to paranoid thoughts. The petition identifies Mario as the alleged father and indicates that his address is unknown. On October 24, the agency submitted a detention report stating that the whereabouts of the alleged father were still unknown. At the hearing, the child was detained and placed in emergency foster care. In an amended petition filed in November 2011, a second man was named as an additional alleged father. On November 15, the agency submitted its jurisdiction report. The report states, “The Department will continue to seek the whereabouts of the alleged father Mario [M]. If his whereabouts cannot be determined, a diligent search affidavit will be attached to the disposition report detailing search efforts.” The report recommends that the court establish jurisdiction but delay making any dispositional findings because, among other things, “[t]he paternity of the child has not been established.” The report explains that bifurcation of jurisdiction and disposition will allow the department additional time to search for Mario and time to conduct DNA testing on both Mario and the other alleged father. On November 17, the court sustained the allegations of the petition and set a dispositional hearing for December 21. On December 20, 2011, the agency submitted its disposition report. The report indicates that on December 15 the agency was able to locate Mario by telephone. The report explains, “As this report was being completed, the worker came into possession of a phone number reputedly active to Mario [M.] She was able to reach [Mario], confirm that he is indeed the Mario [M.] which she has sought, and inform him of the situation in a general way, including noticing him of the next hearing. [Mario] stated that he would attend that hearing, and that he desires that the court order paternity testing for him. [Mario] asked if he might be able to gain custody of [his daughter] should tests indicate